his is what I reckon is the first joust between Howard and media of the 2004 election campaign. He’s doing a big deal speech on defence Friday night, and this sort of momentum isn’t generated unless it’s on. The journos names and my comments are in bold. Howard’s peech is at Howard drops diesel price to cut consumption! The White Paper is here.

 

15 June 2004

Transcript of the Prime Minister the Hon John Howard MP, NATIONAL PRESS CLUB SPEECH, QUESTION AND ANSWER SESSION, GREAT HALL, PARLIAMENT HOUSE

Subjects: Australia/United States alliance; Iraq; energy announcement

Michael Brissenden, 7.30 Report: What�s the difference between our relationship with the US and that of the Germans and the French? Why is it that after the G8 meeting last week George Bush could say that while world leaders don�t agree on every issue we can still have very good relations, yet the suggestion coming very strongly from your Government and from the Bush Administration is that Mark Latham�s position would somehow damage our alliance. Is there a qualitative difference in our relationship compared to that of the Germans and French? In short, how can Gerhard Schroeder get away with it and Mark Latham can�t?

HOWARD: Well I wouldn�t put that interpretation, I think there is a qualitative difference, I think the level of trust and the level of reciprocal dependability between Australia and the United States is superior than between the United States, France and or Germany. The reason why I take the position I do in relation to Iraq is that I believe it�s in Australia�s national interest. I think there is a very crucial opportunity available at the moment, attested to overnight by none other I think the Secretary General of the Arab League when he said that, as reported on the ABC Radio National this morning, that the opportunity that Iraq presented for a breakthrough in democracy in the Arab world was one that should not be lost. And I think anything that we can contribute in relation to that is plainly in our national interest, there is only one democracy in the Middle East at the present time and that is the state of Israel. Quite obviously if you were an original coalition partner, the withdrawal of our participation at the present time would resonate more negatively than perhaps the withdrawal of some who�d contributed after the combat phase of the operation against Iraq.

(Margo: He’s not sure which way Australians will go on this, so he’s hedging his bets.)

Chris Hammer. SBS TV news Prime Minister: On Iraq, last week you indicated that a future democracy in that country may differ from the type of democracy that we have in Australia. I wonder if you could expand on that and tell us how a future Iraqi democracy may be different than western democracy and the reason behind that, why would that be necessary?

PRIME MINISTER: No, I�m not going to do that, it�s presumptuous of me to start doing that because then that�s interpreted as Howard saying what kind of democracy should operate in Iraq. I�m acknowledging the fact that different countries express their democratic principles in different ways. I did float with along with others the idea that there was some merit in having a federal structure in Iraq because of the Shiite and the Sunni and the Kurds and I think that�s something that�s obviously in their thinking but for me to get into the business of saying well this is how I think it ought to be organised is quite wrong and it doesn�t respect the independence and the sovereignty that the Iraqi people are entitled to have after the 30th of June.

(Margo: He doesn’t want to admit that real democracy is not what Bush, and therefore Howard, has in mind. Bush wants a government friendly to it much, much more than he wants democracy. He wouldn’t mind the veneer of democracy, if possible.)

Louise Dodson, Sydney Morning Herald: I was just wondering, I notice this statement introduces a green guide for new vehicles to allow consumers to see how environmentally sound their cars are. But why didn�t the Government introduce the eco test which is used in Europe and I understand is the world�s best practice in this sort of thing?

PRIME MINISTER: Well we don�t slavish follow everything that�s done in Europe or indeed the United States or anywhere else and I wouldn�t rule out some further movements in that direction.

(Margo: Certainly not Europe! His green play exposed as fake, he fudges.)

Andrew Fraser, Canberra Times: Do you have any concerns about the policy positions of John Kerry, the US Presidential candidate, either in the energy sector or on other portfolios, and if so do you intend to alert American voters to them?

PRIME MINISTER: I�m having a bit of a difficulty in actually knowing precisely what his positions are, that reminds me of somebody too.

(Margo: Yep, he sure does so intend. Bush and Howard are tied at the hip. And so is Blair, who Bush is also protecting by pressuring his conservative opponent Michael Howard to shut up about American incompetence in Iraq – see Howard’s 2004 Tampa: director George Bush).

Paul Bongiorno, Channel 10 News: Prime Minister, you trumpet the fact that we will achieve our greenhouse target or Kyoto target ahead of other nations and yet we continue to refuse to sign up and if we do achieve this target isn�t it a fact that we won�t benefit from the carbon trading credits, hundreds of millions of dollars worth that we otherwise would have? And do you think any future government will have the courage, greater courage maybe, to take away from the fossil fuels of the 19th century towards the more environment friendly fuels of the 21st century?

PRIME MINISTER: Well Mr Bongiorno, I don�t regard it as courageous to abandon something where you have a natural advantage and a natural advantage which is the envy of the world, I heard another national political figure on, I think it may have been on your programme, extolling the virtues of what Japan has done. I can�t think of two countries and I have, as you know, enormous respect for the Japanese people and for that nation, it�s a very important trading partner of Australia�s and we have very close and enduring links with Japanese society. But I can�t think of two countries that are less alike when it comes to energy needs and resources than Australia and Japan. Of course Japan has to do things that we don�t have to do because Japan is energy starved where as we are energy plentiful. So, and as far as the Kyoto Protocol is concerned the point I made in my speech and I stress it again is that the target we were set by Kyoto we�re going to meet. In other words, we�re doing our bit, playing our part, making our contribution, but we�re not going to sign something that�s unfair to Australia and my guide for this is the Australian national interest and I don�t see any wisdom in signing up to something that could result in a net exports of jobs and investment and industries to major emitter countries that are not subject to the targets, the greenhouse emission targets that would be obliged on Australia if we were a party to the protocol and that�s the reason. If that changes you get all of the major emitters in and you get a change in the rules and we have a more level playing field, well our attitude could well be different. It�s not a question of courage it�s a question of backing the national interest and it just doesn�t make sense in terms of Australia�s national interest for us to sign the Kyoto protocol on present conditions when you have major polluters and emitters countries such as China and Brazil and Indonesia. But it wouldn�t be subject to the constraints we would be subject to and they would get our investment, the world would not have fewer greenhouse gas emissions and we will have lost the jobs and would have lost the investment. I think that is a lose-lose for Australia and very much against our national interest.

(Margo: In Question Time after the Q and A, Howard went for it on jobs. Latham equals job cuts because he supports Kyoto. Expect much, much more on this. It’s short termism at its most grotesque, because moving quickly on alternative energy will create long term jobs.)

Dennis Atkins, The Courier Mail: Prime Minister, you were in Washington recently urging the US congress to support the Free Trade Agreement and Mr Vaile at the weekend was urging the Australian Parliament to do the same. Do you believe� would you like to see the Australian Parliament vote on the Free Trade Agreement legislation before the next election?

PRIME MINISTER: Oh, very definitely. I think this is an important issue. The last thing that should happen is that, you know, people should be unwilling to declare themselves. I mean, we had a question about courage a moment ago, well I would like to know where the Labor Party stands on the Free Trade Agreement with the United States and I would hope that the Parliament does have an opportunity to vote on this legislation well before the next election. Now that�s the hope I express. I don�t know when the election is going to be and it�s one of those slightly tricky questions, tables like yours occasionally dream up, but don�t think my answer in any way has responded to that trickiness. But I would like the Free Trade Agreement to be endorsed by the US Congress. I would like the necessary legislation to be passed by the Australian Parliament and I hope that everybody has an opportunity to express a view on this issue so that the Australian people can factor that in when they in their great wisdom make their decision at some time in the future.

(Margo: Shadow boxing.)

Jim Middleton, ABC News: Your top ups in family payments in the budget are going out to voters this week, to families this week, and thank you very much, and the tax cuts will be flown through in a fortnight or so. Do you think that the gratitude of the voters for your largesse, for your generosity, will extend through until October or November or do you think that, as with so much else in the modern age, the attention span of voters on things such as tax cuts is much shorter than it once was.

PRIME MINISTER: Well, Jim, can I turn you into a one man focus group and perhaps you could give us an indication whether you think that�s what the attitude will be. Look, there are a lot of things people take into account and I think in the end people balance their personal needs and interests with their assessment of the national interest. I don�t regard the Australian people as always taking a personally selfish view. I think they do think of the benefit of the nation. I think many people in 1998 voted for the Coalition even though they, you know, worried as to what the impact of tax reform might be on their own personal circumstances. I think those worries have disappeared since tax reform came about. I think there�ll be a whole combination of factors that they�ll take into account and as for the timing of the election, I don�t know when it�ll be Jim.

(Margo: Lies. He thinks it’s ALL about self interest. That’s what the big con of neo-liberal economics is all about. As Margaret Thatcher famously said, there is no such thing as society…)

Jason Frenkel, Herald Sun: I�m one of those people that�s earning under $52,000 Prime Minister so I�ll move back on to environmental issues, if I could.

PRIME MINISTER: Who am I hearing from?

“Jason Frenkel at the Herald Sun. Would you be able to tell us what�s being done to conserve water and electricity and other resources at Kirribilli House and the Lodge?”

PRIME MINISTER: Well, I have given instructions that any of the local water consumption protocols and rules that have been laid down by the ACT Government and the New South Wales are strictly observed. And when they came out I made a particular point of asking my department to send a memorandum to staff in relation to the water restrictions and if there�s any breaching of them, well that would be against my expressed request and instructions.

(How come he needed to tell his staff to obey the law???)

Michelle Grattan, The Age: Mr Howard, going back to the alliance in Iraq. Can you be explicit about whether you think a pull out of Australian troops would be a substantial damaging of the alliance? And if you think it would, doesn�t that mean that the independence of any Australian Government is necessarily limited under that alliance?

PRIME MINISTER: Well the answer to the question is no, I don�t think that for a moment. The point that I�m making is that an alliance is an expression at a national level, an international level of a friendship between nations and just as friendships between people are most valuable when there are some stresses and difficulties in relation to one of the partners to that friendship so it is the case in relation to a friendship and an alliance between nations. Of course, the American Government will deal with any future Australian Government and, of course, any future Australian Prime Minister irrespective of his or her political complexion will be welcomed in the White House just as any current or future American President is welcome in the Elysses Palace in France. That is not the point, of course we�ll continue to have good, close, friendly, diplomatic relations. But there�s no doubt in my view, given the great significance of Iraq in the international diplomatic firmament at the present time and the obvious challenge of Iraq to the United States that if a nation such as Australia which had been there at the beginning were to withdraw its troops clearly before the job had been completed, not only would that represent a real reduction in the coalition effort but it would be seen as a less than friendly act. Now that essentially is what I have understood people to be saying. I saw, I heard what President Bush said in response to Mr Lewis�s question. He criticised the Opposition Leader�s policy. He didn�t lapse into any personal abuse of the Opposition Leader. I watched the interview with both Armitage and Powell and I thought both of them, if you watch the entire interviews, were presentations of a commonsense attitude. What I think, with respect, people don�t understand or refuse to understand about this issue is that if it�s okay for Australia to pull out � and the official Labor policy is that effectively we should, you know, feel free to go after the 30th of June, that�s effectively what their policy is, not December, December�s the practical date because we�re against pulling out, they�re in favour and they can�t pull out before December � but if it�s alright for us to go on the 30th of June, why isn�t it alright for any other country to go on the 30th of June? Why isn�t it alright for the United States and the British to go on the 30th of June? And if that were to happen we would be delivering the most enormous psychological and real victory to the terrorists and the insurgents and all the other descriptions you want to use imaginable. And if anybody thinks for a moment that that is in Australia�s national interest, if anybody thinks for a moment that would give other than enormous comfort to Jemaah Islamiah with all its reach in Asian Pacific region, which is much closer to home, people talk about things being close to home, I mean, of course it would and I� we can�t cherry pick, we can�t say oh well by implication it�s perfectly okay for us to pull out because the Yanks and the Brits will still be there. I mean, that is implied in everything that is said by those who argue that we should. That�s my answer.

(Margo: The people I consider friends tell me when they think I’m making a mistake. That’s what friends are for. If the polls show voters have bought the American Alliance scare tactic, he’ll ratchet this issue up no end.)

Malcolm Farr, the Daily Telegraph: Going to the excise changes you�ve announced today, how is making fossil fuel cheaper for more people part of an overall programme to ween us off dirty fuel sources?

PRIME MINISTER: I�m not – what the essential argument of this paper, and I hope of my remarks Malcolm, is that whatever may be the merits of renewables, the reality is that the older fuels of which we have large supplies are going to contribute the bulk of our energy needs and what we have to do is to make them cleaner. I mean, the purpose of this is to make them cleaner because you won�t in the short term be able to wean people off them and what you will be able to do is if you make them cleaner to have less concern about their youth. As I said in my speech, the choice is not between renewables and other sources of energy. We can have both of them, but the choice is between high-emission and low-emission energy production and the whole purpose of the technology fund, which incidentally is available not only to the traditional fuels but also to renewables, the whole purpose of that is to fast track the development of technologies that are going to reduce greenhouse gas emissions from the dirty fuels, in other words to make them cleaner fuels and I think that is a more intelligent, realistic approach and one that also plays to our long term natural advantage. I mean, why would we throw away this enormous natural advantage we have? I mean, we are envied around the world for the enormous reserves that we have of gas and other fuels. So surely the smart commonsense thing to do in Australia�s national interest is to try and reduce the greenhouse gas emissions from the use of these fuels and this is what the paper is designed to do.

(Margo: See Howard drapes polluter’s package in green)

Lenore Taylor, the Australian Financial Review: Can I just clarify what you just said then, do you think clean coal technologies and geosequestration, those sorts of things as the long term solution to greenhouse emissions in Australia? Or are they a stop gap measure while other technologies are developed?

PRIME MINISTER: No, I think they are part of the solution, Lenore, I don�t think you can speak with such certainty about any of these things to say that this is the one and only or the most long term solution. I think what you can say is that if your starting point is that we have huge reserves and at present they are cheaper to use than others and cost is a factor in industry and it�s also a fact of the consumers, we still have, I know it�s hard to believe at the moment, remarkably cheap petrol by world standards, but if you start with that and you start with the fact that we are a major supplier of growing world energy needs, it seems to me to be a matter of commonsense that you try and make those energy uses cleaner and things like geosequestration are part of that and how great a contribution it will make in the years ahead, I can�t tell you at the moment, I don�t know enough about it.

Lenore: But presumably in deciding that the mandatory renewable energy target was too expensive an option you made cost comparisons between various options for reducing greenhouse emissions. Can you explain the basis of those?

PRIME MINISTER: Well, I can tell you for example that the current MRET cost is $2 billion to GDP. The Tambling recommendations were $5.1 billion. The ALP recommendations are $11 billion according to the extrapolations from the modelling in Tambling and those of the Australian Greens, ten per cent is $23 billion. Now our view is that that is a very high additional cost, I mean they�re the alternatives and that the advantages to be derived by trying to achieve breakthroughs in other technologies, plus of course the other incentives that we�re providing for renewable uses as distinct from mandating them, that that produces a better outcome.

(Margo: His energy statement is a con, and he knows it.)